Community

May 27, 2012 -- 12:59PM, thecasualoblivion wrote:

Then the problem lies with advantage/disadvantage themselves at a fundamental level. I think you're absolutely right that they can't be divorced from DM fiat to a degree I'd be satisfied with. In that sense, the rules are a fundamental problem thatclan only be solved by removing that rule entirely and replacing it with something that works. Others may like it, but it doesn't work for everybody, and it's so baked into the system that modularity can't fix it. 


If you had been actually listening, you'd know I dislike this sort of thing in and of itself, and no amount of working with the DM would fix it for me. Playing a system that does it to my taste, like 3E or 4E, does work.

Well I mean that's really where it is right? The rules as written rely on Advantage and Disadvantage for things like, bull rush, charge, flanking...etc etc.

It doesn't bother with listing rules for charge and such because they feel that the Advantage and Disadvantage situation is malliable enough to be used for those kind of situations without having to write all of it down.

People have pointed out a thousand problems with this already. From both sides of the issue. It is a matter of taste here as you've said before and I'm not sure we're going to come to an agreement.


The Disadvantage and Advantage rules seem to be built for on the fly judgement calls on sitations or to encourage imrpovisation and etc.

No one should be aruging that that could defientaly lead to problems with bad GM's or bad Players. However I don't think it can be argued that a robust rules system with various charts is going to be easier on DM's like myself. (I mean, I'm not stuck on D&D and play a lot of different table top games, in addition to having a job, hobbies other than gaming and a social life to maintain, so I can't learn the in's and out's of a large book of rules.)

What I'm saying is I like Advantage and Disadvantage because it helps me renforce player agency. It gives me the ability to make judgement calls or let players do crazy things without having to calculate a large problem of any kind. I can just say "Well take Advantage" and be done with it.

If my fighter character wants to do that cool thing to gain an Advantage I have the power as  DM to make that thing happen. The fighter character asks me "Hey is it cool if I do this awesome move to gain an advantage." I say "Go for it at this DC" he says "Okay let's do it." Then he gets advantage or he doesn't.

What your saying is you want to say "Hey, this happens because this is the way that I built my character. It doesn't rely on you saying that it happens, it happens becaust that's RAW." I'm not saying that's rules laywery, I'm just saying you want your character to be able to do something without reliance on the DM's good will.

It doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with the DM. You want to build a character that works a certain way without needing approval. You want player agency implied by the character creation rules of the system, by the rules of the world.

The problem is I'm not going to (and people in my camp) aren't likely to agree that that's the best way for things to happen. That implying a system where you have to work with the DM is going to be better. Having a more free flow system that can be adjusted on the fly by the DM or by the players is more creative in my opinion.

This is like a cinamatic and simulationist arguement really.

So I'm not sure where talking about this will go anymore. I have this taste and you have that taste.

I don't think that people in your camp are going to be okay a with a freeflow system that works for both the players and DM. Or some kind of Advantage and Disadvantage economy that the Dm and players have to agree on, because for you, that takes away your authority to do what you want with your character right?

I mean were not going to solve with something like "Hero Points" from mutant and mastermind are we?

Thought I would share a broader perspective of what I experienced as a fan of D&D. 

In the 70's my uncle started playing D&D in school with a group of friends.  I was seven and already loved the genre of fantasy. I had read Chronicles of Narnia and watched the Hobbit cartoon movie. I was playing Temple of Apshai and occasionally even a few Avalon Hill games with my neighbor. I was introduced to the game by sitting on the stairs up to my uncle's room and listening to the game. He ran my cousins and I through our first adventure which was Tomb of Horrors! Seriously, this was my introduction! I loved it so much, the imminent death in a ridiculous adventure did not stop me. I was hooked. Soon after, my uncle bought the Advanced books and gave me his Basic D&D set. I started playing and running games. I loved making maps and making people fight ridiculous creatures. We had gods fighting each other, Elric battling Cthulhu! I consumed the books and for years ran poorly written stories unless I was running a module. Those modules, especially the series, taught me how to tell a tale. I started learning that it was so much better with a continuous story. Then I started reading Dragon magazine and it expanded on ideas. Ed Greenwood introduced me to new creatures and their ecologies. I was the first of our players to by the FGR box set and later the hardcover book.

At the time of 2^nd edition, a member of our group had been introduced to another D&D player who moved to the area and he became our DM and ran one of the most memorable games I have ever played. A 4+ year story. He altered the rules when needed, allowing for creativity and exciting descriptive attacks and more. Midway through the campaign, we read over 2^nd edition and realized that it offered so much more for our style of play. We had already added in Cavaliers and Barbarians! We loved the options to allow a thief to be unique. Non weapon proficiencies were so wonderful. It helped define our characters. Those skills and extra abilities made our PC’s more. Our GM would read over any new spells or abilities and OK them for his campaign and we were all ok with him saying no. At the same time Forgotten Realms had risen to the forefront. Why? Because it had a world for people to play in. Before FGR, DM’s didn’t write worlds at all or spent tons of time developing their own worlds. The more important of those two were the novices that fell into the group that never created a world. Suddenly we had NPC’s with names and jobs! Taverns were named. Secret societies and mercenary groups were roaming around. It was encouraged to give your group an adventuring name. I ran so many of my own created stories in the Realms. From there I travelled to Planescape. New races and prestige classes were awesome. The imagination ran wild. Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Birthright! It was all so brilliant! Again, the rules for these worlds had many things that could unbalance another but the DM had that control to say no. Imagine if a player tried to bring his Staff of the Magi &  Alchemy Jug into Dark Sun?

By this time my main DM, Rich decided to open a game store. I was his first and only employee for quite some time. Now we were playing everything. GURPS, Vampire, Magic, etc.  When we learned of 3^rd edition, we cringed. What fool would let people play a dragon as a PC? Who would let their group all be werecreatures? What a horrible idea to allow Dwarven mages! But we had no choice but to learn it. It was business. We soon realized, this was a great move. It opened up a whole new group of players to the game. Imaginations went wild. Players had the most ludicrous campaigns. Guess what? They were having fun. No lie, I was once asked how the group could magically move a tree around so they could adventure with a Vampire Dryad the one member had created! WTF! It was not my kind of game but it was definitely theirs. I was frustrated with the players in my games constantly grabbing non Wizards D20 books and trying to use weapons and feats from them. It was overwhelming. But again, what never became an issue was the DM saying no to something new if it didn’t work within the confines of the story.

When 4^th came out, I was again excited. While there were cons to each system previously, they all made the game better in the long run. 3^rd edition’s biggest advantage became its biggest flaw. It was it was so bogged down with feats and skills and bonuses and tactics that a GM had to invest way too much time and effort into making a combat a challenge. Players could master flanking and a few feats to be destructive. The only way a DM could keep up was to cheat profusely or create twenty ogres that were also 7^th level fighters. Complete with a variety of feats and skills to be challenging!  I was ready for a change. We started our first test run of the system and were turned off. It was so balanced and simple it seemed to be a videogame to us. Why can a 1^st level thief or mage dish out and take equal damage to a fighter. I think my quote was along the lines of, “If I want to play Diablo, I will just play Diablo.” We watched and read up on the system. We took the pieces we liked and incorporated them into 3.5. We saw the system that to us started off vey generic and having very little individuality struggle to offer that later. As the game went on, it evolved into a tabletop version of a computer game. It was so combat oriented that it lost the character. It did streamline combat and made it fast. But it lacked personality. As later books were released they tried to bring that back and it bogged the whole thing down.

We currently play Pathfinder, to be honest. We enjoy it. To have you understand how I play, my current PC is a 6^th level thief who is a coward. I have taken, no lie, 18 pts of damage since we started! I rely on the skills, feats and roleplaying to keep my character alive and entertaining. We have a couple of power gamers who love the fight and enjoy beating the snot out of our bad guys for me so it works out. We have very little to object to.

I like, use and on this particular game, I require a rules system that lets me be a non combatant. We also rely on the rules. We learn the rules for our characters and the DM trusts us to abide by them. This means he has more time to “role play” and less with looking up rules. It only becomes an issue when someone seems to do something to unbalance the game. Then we look it up. Otherwise, we are all contributing to the rules because we know them! This system does not allow that because all checks are the DM’s whim. This is not conductive to cooperative play or trust from the PC’s. Player’s in previous edition would know the rules and how they worked and would make a roll after a description and say how they did. Now they must wait for the DM to declare what they need to roll for, what the DC is, after his detailed description. Then, we resolve. Technically this entire system is more or less one big fiat.

My question is, how is this yet a better system? 

May 27, 2012 -- 7:51PM, Chaltab wrote:

My question is, how is this yet a better system?

It isn't. And if it ever will be, it needs a lot of work.

See this is the problem with the whole discussion. It just keeps going back and forth about GM Fiat, about improvasion, about these broad things.

Honestly this isn't helping, the above quote. Not to pick on Chaltab but saying "This system is not good because it's not good." Doesn't help.

Suggestions would be good.

The goal of D&DNext is to make it a D&D that we can all be satisfied with right?

So we have the pro-advantage and disadvantage group saying "Let's keep Disadvantage and Advantage because it allows for improvisation on the fly without being bogged down by a lot of rules." The idea being that we don't really need a rule for "Bull Rush" if we can just say have someone roll STR versus STR to push someone over.

We have the pro-robust rules group saying that each DM could be different on their rulling of how pushing someone over actually effects a creature. One DM might say that it knocks that target prone, another might say that it causes that monster to get 1d6 Bashing damage.

We then have another complaint being that there should be built in system rules and character rules that just work because that's innately the way the system works. No need for a DM to make a ruling if there are rules written into the system. Also that if we have to ask the DM everytime to do something cool with a stat or a skill than that's not good because you have to ask the DM, which the OP is really really against, he wants his stuff to work because the system says it works that way, not the DM.

I don't think there is anyway to satisfy both groups.

The designers can choose to scorn one group or the other.

They're other option is to build a modular system of some kind to both satisify the pro Advantage and Disadvantage group and the con Advantage and Disadvantage group.

We need the option to put in all the extra rules or the option to take out all the rules and have the system work for both unless we want to alientate one group or the other.